Featured Articles

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan. Read more

“Bad Santa” and Eli Plaut’s “A Kosher Christmas”

[This article was originally posted on Dec. 24, 2013; it is a comment on an article that appeared in Tablet on Dec. 17, 2013. Tablet has seen fit to repost it in 2014, on Christmas eve, so I thought I would repost my comment.]

Billy Bob Thornton and Tony Cox in Bad Santa.

It’s that time of year again. Time for Jewish angst about Christmas. The Tablet has a revealing article by Adam Chandler that gets at the Jewish view of the season (“All-Star Team of Jews Defiles Christmas in Billy Bob Thornton’s ‘Bad Santa’: How the Coen brothers and Terry Zwigoff helped create a holiday classic that angers gentiles“). Described as “the greatest Christmas movie of all time,”

ten years after its release, Terry Zwigoff’s Bad Santa, a rail whiskey blend of Brecht and Bukowski, has become a holiday standard. Brought to life by a Jew from Wisconsin (Zwigoff) and four Jewish brothers (two Coens and two Weinsteins), it is regarded as a classic send-up of Christmas culture gone awry. The crude, brilliant movie is a staple of Comedy Central’s December line-up.  …

With an assault of impiety, the film makes Christmastime in America seem an impossible place to be if you live at the margins. The way that message is conveyed throughout the movie, however, is more fluid than solid. After his introductory monologue, Willie stumbles into the alley behind the bar where, with the Chopin nocturne still lilting, he upchucks loudly into the snow. It’s a beautiful shot, retching Santa and all, that ends with the postcard appearance of the movie title in red lettering.

Uplifting stuff for the holidays. The artistic contribution of the Coen brothers is critical:

In an interview last year, director Terry Zwigoff explained how the Coen Brothers turned Bad Santa from holiday pastiche into scorched earth. “Like the kid would ask Santa, ‘Do you and Mrs. Santa ever think of having kids?’ And in the original script it was just, ‘No, thank God.’ And the Coens made that into, ‘No, thank the fuck Christ.’ That’s their gift. They have a gift for dialogue.”

Such an improvement! The gleeful desecration of all that is held dear by the hated and resented outgroup.

Read more

Unexamined, Unquestioned, Unchallenged: Jewish Power in Brave New Britain

Ehud Sheleg. Who is he? CFI. What is that? The vast majority of people in Brave New Britain still don’t have a clue, because the mainstream media completely ignored these very interesting and important questions during the just-ended general election.

The biggest lobbying group in British politics

But this is the Occidental Observer, the Home of Hate, and we think that interesting and important questions deserve answers. Sir Ehud Sheleg (born 1955) is the Israeli Jew and possible “binary options” fraudster who is currently Treasurer of the Conservative Party. He succeeded Sir Mick Davis, a Jew from South Africa, in 2019 and has openly admitted in the Jewish Chronicle that he puts Israel’s interests above those of any other country. And CFI? That’s Conservative Friends of Israel, described in the same Jewish Chronicle as “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster [i.e., British politics].”

The Goy Grovel: Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson perform at CFI

CFI, under the control of another undeservedly obscure Jew called Lord Polak, was responsible for shepherding a female Hindu politician called Priti Patel to a series of secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians in 2017 (and probably long before that too). Patel had to resign her post in Theresa May’s government because of her off-the-record pandering to a foreign government, but don’t worry: she bounced back to an even bigger and better post when Boris Johnson replaced May in 2019. Yes, the four most important people in British politics — part-Jewish Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, Pakistani Muslim Sajid Javid as Chancellor, Indian Hindu Priti Patel as Home Secretary, and Jewish Dominic Raab as Foreign Secretary — are all devout Friends of Israel. Read more

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVI: Serf’s Up!

It is not hyperbolic to state that the neo-liberal establishment is looking to create a globalized, mobile, de-racinated, and compliant serf class. They are already well on their way. The rhetoric is at this point well-understood, and as we enter what the ruling class believes is the end-stage in their consolidation of permanent power, they have become more brazen, in many instances not even bothering to hide their true intentions. One example is in Lewiston, Maine, where city officials explicitly state that their importation of Somalis is in no small part to become cogs in the service sector economy. They provide English classes to these imports “in order to improve their chances for employment. The goal is to compress the usual multi-generational English-acquisition process to one generation so that the Somalis can get jobs in the service economy.” With an average IQ of 68, two points below the threshold for mild mental retardation, we are not talking about the engineers of tomorrow, but that’s the beauty of a globalized workforce from the perspective of the multi-nationals. Somalis serve the dual purpose of working at McDonald’s and destroying social cohesion with violence and sheer alienness, whereas Asia, especially India, has been a vast resource for cheap tech sector workers. 70.9% of all H-1B applicants in 2015 were from India, with China in second at 9.7%.[1]

The burgeoning tech sector in the 21st century has been instrumental in destroying American labor rights and the middle class, and severely undermining national sovereignty. In many ways, it is the catalyst for the accelerating dissolution we are presently witnessing. First, the major players of Silicon Valley worked to violate the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, and then they lobbied for extensive replacement labor via H-1B visas. As Mark Ames reports:

In early 2005, as demand for Silicon Valley engineers began booming, Apple’s Steve Jobs sealed a secret and illegal pact with Google’s Eric Schmidt to artificially push their workers’ wages lower by agreeing not to recruit each other’s employees, sharing wage scale information, and punishing violators. … eBay and its former CEO Meg Whitman, now CEO of HP, are being sued by both the federal government and the state of California for arranging a similar, secret wage-theft agreement with Intuit (and possibly Google as well) during the same period…A class action lawsuit [was] filed [by the Department of Justice] on behalf of over 100,000 tech employees whose wages were artificially lowered—an estimated $9 billion effectively stolen…to pad company earnings. Confidential internal Google and Apple memos…clearly show that what began as a secret cartel agreement between Apple’s Steve Jobs and Google’s Eric Schmidt to illegally fix the labor market for hi-tech workers, expanded within a few years to include companies ranging from Dell, IBM, eBay and Microsoft, to Comcast, Clear Channel, Dreamworks, and London-based public relations behemoth WPP. All told, the combined workforces of the companies involved totals well over a million employees.[2],[3]

As mentioned above, in addition to this domestic collusion, Silicon Valley—just like the rest of big tech’s co-conspirators in the Partnership for a New American Economy (NAE)—is uniform in its support for unlimited foreign workers visas. The “conservative” Cato Institute, founded by Charles Koch,[4] makes the claim that there are “many upsides and no downsides,” which, if you’re Jeff Bezos or Salil Parekh, is true. Foreign scab labor is essential to your swollen profits and to maintaining lordship over your would-be serf class. As Ron Hira and Bharath Gopalaswamy state:

Employers decide whether to apply for an H-1B visa and select the candidates. Employers also have the power to decide whether the H-1B worker can remain in the country. As a result, employer motivations and behaviors are the primary drivers of the outcomes of the program. Nearly four in five H-1B applications approved by the US Department of Labor were for the lowest two wage levels, far below the average US worker’s wage. But, the costs savings run much deeper than just lower wages. Employers have enormous leverage over their H-1B workers, who are, in effect, indentured. A number of economists have recently described how rising monopsony[i.e., where there is only one buyer] power in the labor market is an important factor in explaining US wage stagnation. One of those economists, Princeton University’s Alan Krueger, who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Barack Obama White House, has described how the executives of Silicon Valley technology firms were especially eager to use their monopsony power to keep their engineers’ wages low by limiting their opportunities to leave. The executives—including Google’s Eric Schmidt, a vocal advocate of H-1B expansion—went so far as to collude with one another by agreeing not to poach each other’s engineers. So, especially in the technology industry, employers see limiting worker mobility as an important human-resource strategy to keep wages low. The H-1B rules provide even greater ability for employers to exercise monopsony power over workers. H-1B workers have limited labor-market options, since only a subset of employers is willing to sponsor a work visa. Further, like many others, H-1B workers are subject to noncompete agreements and, in some cases, are even subject to employment bonds. They are afraid to complain of violations, and can be sued for liquidated damages if they leave, even by employers found to violate H-1B rules.[5]

As discussed in Volume XII regarding Nestlé, an individual or organization’s prior conduct and violations have no negative bearing on their present status unless the ruling class needs a sacrificial lamb. Speaking of Nestlé, under the pretense of spreading “social justice” globally and “empowering women,” corporations such as Nestlé endeavor to work with NGOs and governments to produce the kind of semi-literate, cheap workforce they thrive on across the Third World. The stated aim is to, “Strengthen women’s economic capacity as entrepreneurs, employees, and producers, and invest in women’s leadership development.” Nestlé is also a founding member of the UNHCR Business Council, which “aims to encourage private sector commitment, in programmes on health education…enhancing water delivery systems, promoting sports and education, especially for girls, as well as training skills and access to computers.” SwissContact [a joint project between the Swiss government and Nestlé] operates a program of Skill Development, including secretarial or beautician skills, as well as in construction, agriculture, energy, tourism, or media. SwissContact focuses on Asian, African, Latin American, and Central European countries, with the overall objective to “strengthen the private sector, facilitate the generation of sustainable employment for both men and women, and, ultimately, reduce poverty.” This faux-philanthropy is aimed at training a cheap, compliant workforce who will be loyal consumers and not ask questions. Nestlé also has a number of “global partnerships” and Development Programs:

·         Jamaica: “On-the-job” training for school leavers and apprenticeship programs in Nestlé operations, e.g. mechanics, industrial and electrical maintenance, welding, etc.

·         Brazil: An initiative of the government and with GR FoodServices, “First Job” creates 2000 working posts (over 2 years) in the catering field.

·         Philippines: Cut and Sew Livelihood Project provides jobs to community workers for factory orders for uniforms, hairnets, shoe covers, etc.

·         Kenya: Ndenderai youth generate income by producing banana-fibre boxes for Nestlé product displays.

·         Thailand: The “T-Bird” or Thailand Business Group for Rural Development, aims to harness and utilise private sector resources for underprivileged villages in remote areas, via loans to new businesses or contributions for education or infrastructure.

·         South Africa: More than 1 million SA Rand invested in the Apprenticeship Programme, situated Eastern Cape East London Factory which, in 2004, enrolled 12 people from a nearby disadvantaged community.

·         Dominican Republic: FORJA Project Training of young farmers, in collaboration with Swiss Association for International Cooperation, to develop business acumen and give technical and practical training in agriproduction techniques, while financing feasible micro-business potential. Includes scholarships to children of farmers and offers on-the-job practical training.[6]

They will be expected to be grateful for being lifted from abject poverty to relative poverty.  Meanwhile, in Western countries, the “externalities” of neo-liberalism force young people to flock to urban environs to pursue work, where they will be swiftly molded into hedonistic or sexless economic cogs, failing to reproduce and staying on the white-ish collar/barista treadmill to oblivion. The economic and taxation realities artificially depress White birthrates and “necessitate” the importation of huge numbers of non-Whites to fill the labor “needs” of the host country, as one line of propagandistic “reasoning” goes. As Paul Craig Roberts writes:

The rule of law is dead throughout the West. Democracy is a scam. There is oligarchic rule.  Everything is done for organized interest groups.  Nothing is done for the people…The number of white children, that is, the group of the next generation of parents, is not only declining relative to the populations of non-whites but also absolutely.  During 2010-2018 the number of white children shrank by 2.2 million. The American middle class, which is largely white, bears the brunt of income taxation which means that white Americans bear the brunt of the cost of the welfare support systems. The white middle class also bears the brunt through property taxes of the public school systems. Many middle class members pay again in private school tuition for the education of their children in safer and more ordered environments.  The cost of university education is exorbitant. All of these costs are rising faster than middle-class incomes, and this limits white procreation. The decline of people of European descent as a percentage of the US population can only accelerate as the child-bearing ability of the white population evaporates.[7]

All of this is by design. Maximizing profitability means the willful neglect of other considerations such as ethics, which includes commodifying the very misery created by neo-liberalism and marketing and selling it back to the alienated, disaffected population produced by the current system in the first place. What is vital to understand is that when we have the Democratic Socialists of America and the Libertarian Party essentially running on the same platform, the public-private binary is a false dilemma. The spectrum of options for American voters is either cultural degeneration and racial erasure with a “social justice” paint job, or one that masquerades as “individual liberty.” Though they may couch their ulterior motives in so much rhetoric, just as with the elephant and the jackass, the leadership’s eyes might as well be represented by those cartoon dollar signs. The nexus of venture capital and big tech has proven profoundly damaging to any notions of nation, but for executives, major shareholders, the various “compliance” cottage industries, advocacy groups, and the like it has been a financial bonanza.

The American Bar Association is keenly aware of the need to provide services—and reap the financial windfall—navigating the complex international framework of labor laws and corporate restructuring, especially as private equity firms have increasingly become involved in mergers and acquisitions—described by Market Realist as “a frenzy.” Tali Orner writes:

For companies that employ foreign nationals, that task is even more complicated as there are significant immigration-related consequences that must be addressed prior to sealing the deal on a merger or acquisition. Because most work visas are employer-specific, changes in a company’s structure could affect the validity of a foreign national employee’s nonimmigrant visa status or pending green card application…It is critical for in-house counsel to be aware of immigration-related issues that may arise as a result of a restructuring between companies that employ foreign nationals. Companies should work with competent and experienced immigration counsel early on in any transaction to ensure that they are in compliance with immigration regulations and to ensure that foreign national employees remain authorized to work in the United States.[8]

While parasitic in nature, these parasitic entities have their own kind of symbiosis that allows them to flourish and generally escape scrutiny while they scrap our nations for parts. They are all deeply dependent on each other, and their enmeshing—often collusion—provides for mutual benefit. It is vital to understand that this is how the neo-liberal model continues to perpetuate itself and accelerate the accrual of capital and resources to its beneficiaries at the expense of the many through its predication on exponential growth and its maintenance of a mutually-reinforcing network of inextricably intertwined universities, NGOs, think tanks, various media outlets, governing bodies, corporate boards, law firms, financiers, and the like.

One example of this type of relationship is exhibited by Ropes & Gray LLP, advisors to Kohlberg & Co. in connection with obtaining financing for the acquisition of CIBT Global, Inc., a provider of travel visa and immigration services to corporations, travel management companies, and individuals. They also make big money advising charitable foundations, and they work closely with Silver Lake Partners. Ropes & Gray also work closely with Bain Capital, which is very much invested in this particular model. On October 20th, 2016, Greg A. Shell, managing director of Bain Capital Double Impact Fund, gave the keynote speech at the Leading by Example conference hosted by The Boston Foundation, Boston College, and Ropes & Gray. This conference is one of the premier conferences of its kind where leading figures in this burgeoning industry—and yes, it should be abundantly clear by now it is an industry—compare notes and network. The 2018 edition featured a lot of kvetching about diversity, which will surely be reflected where you live and work and not where these people do. One major point of discussion was the nexus of “civic engagement” in “inner city communities” with economic output—so here you get the perfect twofer of Democrat votes and Chamber of Commerce GDP! Another point of discussion was why it is much more advantageous to lobby under the pretense of philanthropy as opposed to direct lobbying, and that is for several reasons, not least of which are avoiding “registration and disclosure requirements” and “restrictions imposed by sources of funding.”

Of the CEOs polled in “The Future of Foundation Philanthropy” (December 2016) sponsored by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, many stated that their philanthropic endeavors were necessary to circumvent the “political climate and structure that is hostile to advancement in our mission areas,” and “political gridlock, especially at the federal level, which makes it almost impossible to address critical long-term issues in an informed manner.” That’s all well and good if the causes being advanced were not terribly destructive and totally self-serving, but they are. And the government—at least in theory accountable to the people—is constrained in ways the private sector is not. Other salient points included (and as always, you need to read between the lines):

The majority of foundation CEOs interviewed—almost 60 percent—identify climate change or the environment as a pressing issue. Several comments stress the importance of climate change in particular… Several CEOs suggest that “federal government interference with philanthropy” or “governmental efforts to more tightly regulate foundations and endowments” may pose challenges and heighten restrictions for foundation philanthropy in the future. Some CEOs specifically mention a “backlash against tax deductions” or “potential changes to IRS tax laws related to foundation giving.”… On the topic of race, a number of CEOs contemplate what the future holds. Several believe that a “majority-minority shift in U.S. demographics” and “the browning of America” will have implications for foundation staffing and leadership—namely, in a needed “transition to multiethnic leadership” and a greater focus on “diversity in leadership.” Some note the importance of diverse staffing, governance, and leadership for foundations overall for “achieving better results.”… Others note that foundations can take risks and test ideas without the constraints or ramifications that business or government might have.

As a second example of the kind of neo-liberal incestuousness that would make Gellius blush, the entire political enterprise of “liberal democracy” is only so much corporatized oligarchic rule. Let’s consider major private equity firm Silver Lake Partners. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s former chief of staff—replaced by Dan Meyer of the Duberstein Group[9]—Barrett Karr is now a managing director and Head of Government Affairs in Washington, DC at Silver Lake Partners, assuming many of the duties of departed CFR member and international security adviser to the United Nations secretary-general Gordon M. Goldstein. Karr’s position entails coordinating with lobbyists, trade associations, media contacts, government agencies, and local, state, and federal government officials, working to see to the implementation of policy proposals and ensuring a generally favorable environment for Silver Lake to continue to grow its $43 billion in assets.

One of Silver Lake’s founders is Maine native and Lewiston High School graduate David Roux. Bristol Seafood, Inc. in Portland is now positioned for “exponential growth” in the international market, according to former CEO Darrell Pardy, after Roux’s decision to invest in the company and provide it with an infusion of capital. With the much-discussed addition of another facility and a consequent spike in its demand for cheap labor, Bristol will likely be using the same Hancock, DeCoster, Wyman, and company playbook.[10] For his part, Roux will likely see to it that Silver Lake’s private equity model be applied to Bristol’s seafood harvesting, which will have predictably disastrous consequences affecting wages, demographics, social cohesion and trust, and the Atlantic ecosystem.

Silver Lake Partners is emblematic of the private equity model so pervasive in driving America’s transformation from nation to economic zone. Silver Lake co-founder and CFR and NAE member Glenn H. Hutchins is on the New York Federal Reserve Board of Directors, co-chairs the Brookings Institution and Harvard University’s capital campaign, and is a director of AT&T and Virtu Financial—there is of course no conflict of interest. As a case-in-point, speaking of the Brookings Institution, their Hamilton Project is yet another outlet publishing policy papers and memoranda advocating for “a twenty-first century immigration policy.” There is a near-uniformity in the policy positions of these pro-immigration, GDP-centric organizations like the Hamilton Project or the National Association for Business Economics (NABE), which has featured Hutchins as a speaker at its conferences in the past. Organizations partnering with NABE include Facebook, Google, Netflix, IBM, Amazon, Microsoft, Zillow, Brandeis University, Wells Fargo, Haver Analytics, Ford, Thomson Reuters, the US Census Bureau, Fidelity Investments, Fannie Mae, the McKinsey Institute, FedEx, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, once again clearly signaling the beneficiaries and supporters of unfettered non-White immigration. Many of those names are very familiar to us by now. What does their “twenty-first century immigration policy” entail? From the Hamilton Project’s May 2012 framing memorandum “The US Immigration System: Potential Benefits of Reform”:

The United States is a nation of immigrants…Even as immigration to the United States continues to rise after a midcentury dip, most agree that America’s immigration policy has failed to keep up with changing circumstances. The current system does not meet U.S. economic needs, no longer reflects the historic humanitarian goal of reuniting families set out in the landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, undermines the confidence of Americans in the rule of law, and has produced divisive and fragmented policy responses at the state level…While there are many ways in which both immigrants and U.S.-born citizens benefit from immigration, few are as stark as the fact that when a non-European college-educated immigrant moves from her native country to the United States, her annual productivity and compensation leaps by $57,000.[11]

Right. In the realm of per-capita GDP, immigration does have benefits—98% of which accrue to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.[12] The presumption that natives will experience a net gain is wholly theoretical and is also predicated on wealth re-distribution, that is to say an increased concentration of wealth in the hands of business owners at the expense of workers. This particular idea has been thoroughly discredited and yet remains the staid talking point of Koch Brothers types—the re-distribution in question amounts to $531 billion, and the net gain to natives amounts to $54 billion.[13] Furthermore, as Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies reports:

The National Academy of Sciences’ comprehensive look at the economic and fiscal impact of immigrants (taxes paid minus services used) found that the net fiscal burden immigrants create (taxes paid minus services used) is actually larger than the immigrant surplus…Whenever the impact of immigration on the labor market is discussed the argument is often made that immigration can fix the problems associated with our aging society, in particular the decline in the share of the population who are workers. However, this is not the case. For example, if we remove the 17.3 million immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in 2000-2014 and their 3.9 million U.S.-born children from 2014 Census Bureau data, 66 percent of the U.S. population would be of working age (16 to 65); if they are included, 66.2 percent are of working-age—a miniscule difference…Even before the Great Recession, a disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants…In the fourth quarter of 2015 only about two-thirds of working-age native-born Americans actually had a job; as recently as 2000 about three-fourths were working. American does not have a shortage of workers, it has a shortage of jobs.[14]

The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that globally over 200 million people are unemployed and 1.44 billion people are in vulnerable employment. Both numbers are projected to continue to get worse. Trends in labor force participation also indicate a decline, and wage growth has been suppressed, contributing to a long-term decline in the labor share of income.

Then there is the erroneous historical claim of America’s wealth being mostly generated by generous immigration (let alone slavery, but that is a topic for another time). Far from immigration being economically necessary, in the time period from 1790 to 1912, all immigration accelerated capital stock gains by a mere decade compared to where the country would’ve been if there was zero immigration. What this means is that the founding colonial stock has been almost exclusively responsible for the country’s economic growth, and any additional immigration approaching the 1924 cut-off had only slight benefits to the country. Hence, immigration, which is taken as sure as death and taxes these days, is by no means necessary, and as we’ve seen post-1965, far from being beneficial, even slightly as was the case in the 19th and early 20th centuries, has proven to be a major detriment to the country at large. I’ve dedicated ample space elsewhere to further debunking these dubious claims of economic benefit, to say nothing of the litany of other fallacies—the “nation of immigrants” trope, the acceptance of the 1965 Immigration Act as “humanitarian” in aim, the conception of America as a contract, etc.—so let’s look behind the curtain to see who might lend their support to such deeply erroneous claims. Cui bono? Below is the Hamilton Project’s Advisory Council with accompanying position(s) at the memo’s time of publication:

George A. Akerlof, Koshland Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley; Roger C. Altman, Founder & Chairman of Evercore Partners; Alan S. Blinder, Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics & Public Affairs at Princeton University; Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer at Ripplewood Holding, LLC; Jonathan Coslet, Senior Partner & Chief Investment Officer, TPG Capital, L.P.; Robert Cumby, Professor of Economics at Georgetown University; John Deutch, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Karen Dynan, Vice President & Co-Director of Economic Studies, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution; Christopher Edley, Jr., Dean and Professor, Boalt School of Law University of California, Berkeley; Blair W. Effron, Founding Partner, Centerview Partners LLC; Judy Feder, Professor & Former Dean, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University; Roland Fryer, Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics, Harvard University and CEO, EdLabs; Mark T. Gallogly, Cofounder & Managing Principal, Centerbridge Partners Advisory Council; Ted Gayer, Senior Fellow & Co-Director of Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution; Richard Gephardt, President & Chief Executive Officer, Gephardt Group Government Affairs; Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Chuck Hagel, Distinguished Professor, Georgetown University; Glenn H. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Silver Lake; Jim Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC; Lawrence F. Katz, Elisabeth Allison Professor of Economics at Harvard University; Mark McKinnon, Global Vice Chair, Hill + Knowlton Strategies; Eric Mindich, Chief Executive Officer, Eton Park Capital Management; Suzanne Nora Johnson, Former Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman of Global Banking, Citigroup, Inc.; Richard Perry, Chief Executive Officer, Perry Capital; Penny Pritzker, Founder, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of PSP Capital; Meeghan Prunty, Senior Advisor, The Hamilton Project; Robert D. Reischauer, President Emeritus of The Urban Institute; Alice M. Rivlin, Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution and Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University; David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder & Managing Director of The Carlyle Group; Robert E. Rubin, Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations and Former U.S. Treasury Secretary; Leslie B. Samuels, Senior Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP; Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer, Facebook; Ralph L. Schlosstein, President & Chief Executive Officer, Evercore Partners; Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google Inc.; Eric Schwartz, 76 West Holdings; Thomas F. Steyer, Senior Managing Member, Farallon Capital Management; Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University; Laura D’Andrea Tyson, S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley; Michael Greenstone, Director.

Yes, mass immigration really is great if you’re on this list. A lot of Jews on there, too. Must just be a coincidence.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.


[1] Kenneth Rapoza reports: “The H1-B visa…is the hallmark of every Indian IT company operating in the U.S.  Infosys, Wipro. Tata Consultancy, Tech Mahindra and HCL Technologies are the top Indian-owned companies importing foreign workers. In fact, of the top 10 companies that petition for the 85,000 H1-B visas issued annually, five are Indian. Cognizant, Accenture, Amazon, IBM and Deloitte are the biggest U.S. users…Indian IT firms fear Trump will either stop Indian companies from importing workers temporarily, or make it harder to provide evidence that Infosys is hiring from Bangalore because it cannot hire from Boston.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/27/trump-h1b-immigration-silicon-valley-outsourcing-india/#73d0078a7ff1

[2] https://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

[3] Ames writes: “The realities of inequality and capitalism invariably lead to mysticism of this sort, a natural human response to the dreary realities of concentrating so much wealth and power in the hands of a dozen interlocking board members at the expense of 100,000 employees, and so many other negative knock-off effects on the politics and culture of the world they dominate…One of the more telling elements to this lawsuit is the role played by ‘Star Wars’ creator George Lucas, who emerges as the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the wage-theft scheme. It’s almost too perfectly symbolic that Lucas — the symbiosis of Baby Boomer New Age mysticism, Left Coast power, political infantilism, and dreary 19th century labor exploitation — should be responsible for dreaming up the wage theft scheme back in the mid-1980s, when Lucas sold the computer animation division of Lucasfilm, Pixar, to Steve Jobs. Jobs held to this agreement, and used it as the basis two decades later to suppress employee costs just as fierce competition was driving up tech engineers’ wages.”

[4] Corporate partners and donors include McGraw-Hill Financial, Facebook, Google, the Walton Family Foundation, Koch Industries family foundation, eBay, Microsoft, Walmart, General Motors, ExxonMobil, Time Warner, Verizon, Visa, and Comcast. The Cato Institute in turn finances organizations such as the Maine Heritage Policy Center.

[5] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Reforming_US_High-Skilled_Guestworkers_Program.pdf

[6] https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/asset-library/documents/reports/csv%20reports/community%20and%20development/un_millennium_development_2005_2006_english.pdf

[7] https://www.darkmoon.me/2019/the-end-of-white-america-is-now-assured/

[8] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2013/04/05_orner/

[9] Founded by Kenneth Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff to President Reagan and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Duberstein Group is a lobbying firm whose services have been retained by the likes of United Airlines, Pfizer, Northrup Grumman, Estee Lauder, Comcast, Hasbro, Bank of New York Mellon, British Petroleum, General Motors, Pepsi, McGraw-Hill Financial, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, Kellogg’s, DeBeers, Lenovo, Sara Lee, Fannie Mae, and Lockheed Martin. During the bailout, the Duberstein Group made in excess of $600,000 lobbying for Fannie Mae and $2.3 million lobbying for Goldman Sachs. The Duberstein Group regularly rubs elbows with previously-discussed firms such as Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hoauer, and Feld LLP and Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand, as well as the Wexler Group.

[10] Hancock Foods, along with Coastal Blueberry Service Inc., recently settled a suit over the mistreatment of eighteen Haitian migrant workers who had been recruited by contactor Carol Paul in Florida to come to Maine to pick blueberries in 2008. The suit alleged hundreds of violations of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act involving Paul’s promises to the workers. As evidenced elsewhere, these practices are the rule, not the exception, when it comes to these companies.

[11] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/05_immigration_greenstone_looney.pdf

[12] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Camarota%20Testimony.pdf

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

Vulture Capitalism is Jewish Capitalism

“If man will strike, strike through the mask!”
Ahab, Moby Dick

It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson’s recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer’s vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I first profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer’s escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker’s segment very starkly illustrated, their reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities. Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a “vulture fund” practicing “vulture capitalism.” But these funds aren’t run by carrion birds. They are operated almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most influential “vulture funds,” to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I want us to strike through the mask.


Who Are The Vultures?

It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management, Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital, Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort, the “Wolf of Wall Street,” who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton Oakmont.

These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by, and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:

  • Elliot Management — Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel
  • Cerberus — Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub, Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum
  • FG Hemisphere — Peter Grossman
  • Autonomy Capital — Derek Goodman
  • Baupost Group — Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach
  • Canyon Capital Advisors — Joshua Friedman, Mitchell Julis
  • Monarch Alternative Capital — Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock
  • GoldenTree Asset Management — Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro
  • Aurelius Capital Management — Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan
  • OakTree Capital — Howard Marks, Bruce Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone
  • Fundamental Advisors — Laurence Gottlieb, Jonathan Stern
  • Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP — Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff

The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don’t have a special relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice. Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory of Jewish-European relations.

How They Feed

In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more than $74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was owed to all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg’s Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, “They owe a lot of money to your friends on Wall Street, and we’re going to have to wipe that out.” But Trump’s statement, like all of Trump’s statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: “I think what you heard the president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt problem.” In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.

Trump’s reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to “your friends on Wall Street” he really meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt, leaving the country prone to a “wave of home repossessions” on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall) made thousands of Americans homeless. Feinberg has also been associated with mass evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to label him a “Jewish mega parasite” in charge of the “world’s vilest vulture fund.” In May 2018, Trump made Feinberg chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board, and one of the reasons for Trump’s sluggish retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg’s DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.

But Trump’s association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece in the New York Post declared “Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in 2020.” This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions, coupled with his commuting of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin‘s 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel, where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, “We screened all of the people in attendance, and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican. People were standing up on their chairs chanting … eight more years.” The reality, of course, is that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.

The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial predators is certainly nothing new. Congo, Zambia, Liberia, Argentina, Peru, Panama, Ecuador, Vietnam, Poland, and Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching Greece and India. The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On its most basic level, “vulture capitalism” is really just a combination of the continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the peasantry to obtain “considerable surpluses … if need be, by ruthless methods.”[1] The activities of the Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets, bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.

This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the Belgian and UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer’s predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:

It couldn’t be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in 2016. He’s given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never have heard of Paul Singer — which tells you a lot in itself — but in Washington, he’s rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh yeah, it is.

Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a commentary on Carlson’s piece at the American Conservative, points out that Singer gave a speech in May 2019 attacking the “rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party.” Singer continued, “They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers.” Dreher comments: “The productive efforts of businesspeople and workers”? The gall of that man, after what he did to the people of Sidney.”

What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn’t even any recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately believe they have a right to be “showered by free stuff promised by politicians.” Singer places himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, “this is not the free enterprise that we all learned about.” That’s because it’s Jewish enterprise — exploitative, inorganic, and attached to socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property. This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it’s clearly the free enterprise Jews learn about — as illustrated in their extraordinary over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.

Whom They Feed

Singer’s duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds, awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?

Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has declared “free enterprise has been good for me,” is a rapacious debt exploiter who was integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman’s Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated island for bond payments. It’s clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists, investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies (Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:

Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who – in addition to having worked directly with Baupost – seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship with a firm fitting Baupost’s profile on his experience page. … I called Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back (apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn’t call back if he wasn’t, and he seemed to get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer and has clients, how I must think I’m onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person standing right in front of him – literally, standing right in front of him – while I rudely insisted on keeping him on the line.

One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by Klarman under his Klarman Family Foundation. While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his “areas of focus” which prominently includes “Supporting the global Jewish community and Israel.” While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to “improving the quality of life and access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country’s prosperity.” Among those in Klarman’s nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest, are the American Jewish Committee, Boston’s Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also contributes to candidates who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, has said “The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being Neanderthals on this issue.”

Steven Tananbaum’s GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5 billion of the island’s debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has commented:

Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree’s chief investment officer, told a business conference in September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent $610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for exorbitant profits.

Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.

Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls, and utilities (Steve Feinberg’s Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011, Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland’s largest university, comments: “The aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies.” One homeowner, Anna Flynn recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital, owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were “very, very difficult to deal with,” said Flynn, a mother of four. “All [Mars] wanted was for me to leave the house; they didn’t want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home].”

When Bruce Karsh isn’t making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A brief glance at the spending of the Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation, Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.

Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and have a stake in every company you’re likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar stores. With the profits of exploitation, they fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration, boost Zionist politics, invest millions in security for Jews, and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican, and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom’s Watch. Another key Singer project was the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in 2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S. policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from Singer.

Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics (“Paul Singer represents amnesty and he represents illegal immigration pouring into the country”), Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews—Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money. In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the Senate’s most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a “retaliatory strike” against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put it, “These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect a return on their investment in Trump’s GOP.”

The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture, exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at the heads of the world’s most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of regurgitated profits.

Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won’t be stopped through blunt support of “free enterprise,” and they won’t be stopped by simply calling them “vulture capitalists.”

Strike through the mask!


[1] S. Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.

Student Life and the Alt-Right: Reply to Prof. Griffin

As a relatively new movement—some 10 years old now—the alt-right, like any such movement, must be open to continual refinement and articulation.  Thus it is both to be expected, and welcome, that we get a range of opinions from diverse perspectives.  People have different experiences and different knowledge bases, and they naturally approach such a topic from different angles.  This is especially true here, given that we are dealing with a serious and potent social theory, one that furthermore comes into direct conflict with the prevailing power structures in the West.  In such a case, we need to hear the pros and cons of our various ideas, especially from thoughtful and knowledgeable colleagues.

Thus I was pleased to read Dr. Robert Griffin’s critical reply (here) to my recent piece, “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right” (here).  He shares a common background with me, and has a similar interest in campus life in particular—as do many contributors here, not the least, Prof. MacDonald.  I can’t match Dr. Griffin’s 47 years of teaching, but I have been teaching at universities on and off (mostly on) since the early 1980s, which gives me well over 30 years’ experience.  I have taught at three different American universities, and one foreign, in that time.  Perhaps more to the point, throughout much of that period I have been actively involved with student groups and student activists, often serving as an official or unofficial faculty advisor; this experience helped to inform my previous essay.  Though he does not say so explicitly, I get the impression that Dr. Griffin has perhaps less direct experience in working with student groups.  Be that as it may, I will take a look at his many helpful remarks, to see if I can offer a response or rebuttal.  After all, we share many of the same goals, and so it is certainly worthwhile to examine our different thoughts on how to arrive at them.

To begin with, Dr. Griffin jumps directly to my final section, “How to Organize.”  I take this to mean that he is in broad agreement with the first two sections.  My initial “Preamble” laid out some history and context of the dissident right, and identified the three pillars of alt-right philosophy:  1) biology is destiny, 2) Whites and White culture deserve defense, and 3) Jews pose an overriding threat to White interests.  My short middle section offered a “brief manifesto” of White nationalism, summarizing its nine key points, and emphasizing the scientific, non-violent, and ‘non-hatred’ nature of such a view.  The three pillars seem to be widely recognized, whereas the nine points of White nationalism are my interpretation of this worldview.  Given that he offers no comment at all on these issues, I have to assume that Griffin accepts the general outline that I presented.  This is unsurprising; as an alt-right forum advocating for White interests, any TOO contributor should naturally endorse such an outlook, broadly speaking.

The disagreements come in my final section, where I offer thoughts on how to promote and advance an alt-right view on college campuses.  It goes without saying that there is no one “right way” to do this, and the wide variability in campus cultures, student bodies, local social attitudes, and individual student beliefs necessarily requires much flexibility in how to implement such a program.  My original essay was, indeed, a “guide” in every sense of the word:  guidelines and recommendations, thought-starters and practical advice.  It was never intended to lay down the law on student alt-right activism.

In that section, I gave 31 bullet-point items of brief discussion.  Griffin offers critical commentary on 13 of these; hence I presume that he has little or no objection to the remaining 18 (it’s always good to note points of agreement).  Thus we will focus on the points of contention.

(1)  Students have more power than they think.[1]  Griffin emphasizes the difference between individual and collective power.  Yes, of course, any one student has only a microscopic impact on university finances, as does any one taxpayer with respect to his state or federal government.  My main point was that students are, in large part, funders of the university; they (or yes, their parents) are the paying customers; and as such, they have all the rights of any paying customer.  They have the right to be treated fairly and with respect.  They have the right to complain.  They have the right to point out abuses or incompetence on the part of their “employees.”  And they have no particular obligation to their fellow paying customers, provided that they follow the broad rules of behavior that apply equally to all.  That said, I see no real point of disagreement here.  Yes, it’s more complicated than taking your money elsewhere, but the principle is the same.  You pay (a lot!), and you have rights.  Don’t let your “employees” tell you otherwise.

(2)  Stay within the rules of the university, and they can’t punish you.  Here, we begin to get into more substantive disagreements.  Dr. Griffin seems inordinately sensitive to negative opinions of others.  Or at least, he is imputing such sensitivity to many (most?) students.  I guess it goes without saying that if you are a sensitive flower, don’t become an alt-right activist.  Anyone bothered by “verbal disconfirmation,” “looks of disdain,” or not being called on in class is probably too immature to engage in contentious politics.  Same with anyone affected by “put-downs, smirks, snubs, exclusion” or social media bashing.  The movement needs young people with a thick skin and a strong backbone.

And I don’t know how things work at Vermont, but in my experience, a professor cannot simply dish out “bad grades” to students he doesn’t like.  Sure, some things are subjective, but much is not.  A biased professor is likely to get called out and have to explain himself.  I have had many students whom I found distasteful, but I always gave them fair grades and never considered using grades as a weapon.  Any such individual professor who might do that can usually be safely avoided.

Or is Griffin implying that masses of faculty—all Jewish professors, say, or all liberals—would recognize and collectively retaliate against a specific student?  That’s highly unlikely, in my experience.  But if the whole college is indeed out to get you, then you really are making a mark!

(3)  Create an explicitly alt-right student group or club.  Though I wouldn’t call it “centrist,” I agree that a pro-White movement is not intrinsically left or right on the political spectrum.  As I noted, many liberals hold some conservative views, and many conservatives (even alt-righters) have some traditionally liberal opinions.  If it’s true that many academics avoid self-labeling these days as liberal or left, that doesn’t mean that they are centrists; rather, they are crypto-leftists, which is worse.  Griffin seems to want students to be crypto-rightists.  In fact, he says as much later on, with his recommendation to be like the French underground in WW2, and his call for “secret meetings,” “pseudonyms,” “codes,” and so on.  Certainly this is always an option, but it probably is not the preferred approach.  Alt-right (or dissident right) students should be free—are free—to self-identify as such.  And without penalty.  That should not require defense in an alt-right forum like TOO, but apparently it does.

(4)  Don’t make it a guy’s club.  Dr. Griffin suggests that my brief manifesto would alienate young women.  Sorry about that, but that’s the reality of the situation.  I’m not generally in the business of reworking my philosophical views to please a particular gender or age-group.  I try to tell the truth, straight-up, and I would hope that every thinking person, of all ages and both genders, would accept it as such.  MLK’s ideas and values are not much help for us; nor are the Jewish-inspired techniques of emotional manipulation and pity-mongering.  But here again, Griffin’s sensitivity training comes to the fore; his endorsement of “tugging at our heartstrings,” “making us feel sad,” and “getting us to emphasize” (sic erat scriptum—I presume he means ‘empathize’) are to no avail for the alt-right.  But I agree with his other points here:  yes, be patient about getting out your message; yes, focus on that which is unfair and hurtful to Whites.

(5)  Stay agnostic on religion.  Now we’re getting down to brass tacks.  Based on a quick survey of his writing, I’m guessing that Griffin is a committed Christian.  Unsurprisingly, he objects to my sidelining, and mild disparagement, of his religion.  One might speculate that this, in fact, is at the root of his entire critique of my essay.  This is unfortunate—but serves to prove my point.

I’ll say more about Christianity in a moment, but first I want to address two points he raises here.  He suggests that the anti-Christian crowd is also the anti-White crowd, thereby implying that we Whites can’t trust—and certainly shouldn’t side with—any anti-Christians.  The truth is this:  Part of the anti-Christian crowd are Jews, of both orthodox and secular persuasion.  There’s a lot to unpack here, but in short, the orthodox Jews oppose Christians on a theological basis, and the secular Jews on the basis of scientific materialism and rationalism.  Both mock Christianity, but both are able to find some use in it as well, especially in its Zionist form.  The other main group of anti-Christians are the secular, rationalist, and naturalistic Whites.  These people, I would suggest, are among the toughest and most resolute White nationalists.  Griffin’s ploy to link ‘anti-Christian’ and ‘anti-White’ fails to hold.

His second point is that alt-right students should use Christianity to their advantage.  But he offers no concrete suggestions at all (Hey students, “see what you can come up with”).  What, indeed, could one even plausibly “come up with,” in an alt-right sense, from a Christian point of view?

Given that it’s Christmas time, let’s take a minute to examine this matter a bit more closely.  Consider this question:  What in God’s name (so to speak) is even remotely pro-White about the Bible?  I’ll tell you:  nothing.  The Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.  It is resolutely anti-goyim.  It is nothing more than a war manual for the defense of the Jewish race, along with some moronic theological cover.  The New Testament was also written by and about Jews:  Jesus, Mary, Joseph, 12 Apostles, Paul, ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘John’—all ethnic Jews.  The chronology of events, furthermore, strongly suggests that Paul invented his demi-god Jesus, primarily, it seems, as a stunt to undermine Roman paganism and to draw in the gullible masses, to persuade them to worship the Jewish God and his “son.”  With its emphasis on the presumed afterlife, Paul’s constructed theology was profoundly anti-life, anti-world, and anti-corporeality.  He never believed in it—that artful liar—nor did any of his fellow Hebrews.  Present-day Jews are laughing up their sleeve over the foolish Christians and their “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”; and of course, they are right there, first in line, ready to exploit that love.

There is no sense, then, in which the Bible is pro-White.  In fact, the New Testament, rightly understood as an anti-Roman manifesto, is profoundly anti-White.  At best, we might say that the Bible is pro-humanity.  But even here, it is cloaked with an insidious Jewish leveling of all peoples, all “equal before God”—all except the Jews, who are first among equals.

The bottom line:  Can anyone who worships a long-dead ethnic Jew as his god and personal savior really be alt-right?  Really?  Time to re-read pillar number three.[2]

(6)  Name names, be specific in your critiques.  Again, I don’t know the faculty culture at Vermont, but to suggest that aggrieved Jewish professors might have you “worked over” because of your alt-right views is rather shocking!  (If so, stay away from Vermont.)  And are they really going to haunt you after graduation?  How in the world will they know which jobs you are applying for, unless they work for the Mossad?  This comes across as little more than scare tactics—ones that the Jewish Lobby would certainly view with favor.

(7)  Insults are a badge of honor.  See my reply to (2) above.  Again, if you are a delicate soul, one who is deeply wounded by name-calling, then by all means, don’t become an alt-right activist.

(8)  Learn something about the real Nazis.  Griffin overstates my point.  I never said, “Cozy up to Hitler.”  I said, learn something about him, his situation, and his movement.  There is much of value to learn from history.

(9)  Be visible.  For starters, I am puzzled by my alleged “last sentence” of this item (“And be prepared to take shots for it”).  Where did that come from?  I didn’t write it, and it’s not in my essay now.  In any case, yes, I agree, intentional visibility is optional.  Word will get around soon enough, no matter what you do.  Griffin, though, recommends the opposite—be invisible.  Perhaps this is good advice.  I leave it to each student, and each group, to chose the most appropriate strategy.  I would prefer to see a confident group working fully above-board, but that may not always be prudent.

(10)  An effective group may get shut down.  Same reply as #9.

(11)  Don’t get stuck on ideological labels.  Griffin seems to generally agree with me here, and so no need to reply.  Labels are vague and discretionary.

(12)  Don’t be ‘woke.’  Griffin apparently views Black culture, and in fact all racial minorities, favorably.  Of course, every ethnicity has a right to its own culture and values—but not here, not in this country.  I certainly want Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and so on to be happy, but in their nations of origin.  Neither they nor we can be truly happy in a multiracial, multicultural mish-mash of a nation.  Research data, evolutionary theory, and common sense all support this view.

(13)  Speak the truth.  …unless it starts to hurt, says Griffin, and then knuckle under.  Just stay quiet, keep your head down, hold it in, “get along – go along,” grin and bear it, “cover your ass.”  Or maybe, “Turn the other cheek,” as a Jew once said.  Sorry, but I can’t do that.  Millions do it, on a daily basis, but some of us have to lead.  My original piece was not intended for the masses; it was meant for those few who are the future leaders of their generation.  A medium-sized college campus may only have five or 10 such individuals.  We need to reach them, and help them become strong, confident leaders.

In sum, Griffin offers as much commentary and elaboration as real criticism of my essay.  In contrast to my piece, his scattered suggestions seem to boil down to (a) stay low key, (b) welcome and even use Christianity, and (c) don’t ruffle too many feathers, either with Jews or other minorities.  So be it.  Perhaps some will follow his advice, and others will take the more assertive approach that I recommend.  God knows (so to speak), we need all the help we can get.

_______________________________

Thomas Dalton, PhD, is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2015), Hitler on the Jews (2019), Goebbels on the Jews (2019), and numerous other books on Jews, Germany, and the Holocaust.  See his website www.thomasdaltonphd.com


[1] For sake of brevity, I am summarizing the 13 points from my original wording.

[2] It’s clear that simply being a Christian does not exclude one from being anti-Jewish—Martin Luther being a prime example.  See my newly edited version of his important book, On the Jews and Their Lies (Creative Fire Press, 2020).  Obviously there is more to be said on the relationship between Christianity and the alt-right.  If the TOO editor is willing, I would be more than happy to elaborate.

A Rejoinder to “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students” by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

I read with interest Professor Thomas Dalton’s article posted here on December 8th, 2019, “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students.”  As has Professor Dalton, I have spent many years on American university campuses (I recently retired)—in my case, 42 years as a professor, plus an additional five years at the instructor rank early in my career.  And as has Professor Dalton, I have written extensively on white racial matters.  My experiences and analyses have led me to different conclusions and proposals than Professor Dalton expresses in his article, however.  Different doesn’t necessarily mean better—readers will make that judgment.  I hope what I set out here in response to Professor Dalton’s article will prompt reasoned dialogue and debate.

I’ve decided that the best way to get across my take on things is to comment on the last section of Professor Dalton’s article, which he entitles How to Organize.  In this section, he addresses his university student audience (“I now shift my focus to you, the student reader, and your efforts to make a positive impact on this troubled world.”).

I’ll begin this rejoinder with a quote from my writings that gives a sense of my concept of what white university students are like:

I spent my working life around white university students, and of course I’m generalizing here, but based on my experience with them, their most central motivating impulse is to be characterized, by others and themselves, as decent and fair and just—which, by the way, is why the idea of social justice, prevalent in today’s universities, resonates so well with them.  They don’t want to be great, they want to be good.  And they don’t want to be on one end or the other of a social/political spectrum.  Rather, they want to be secure and accepted and respected in the middle of wherever they are, in the dorm or in the community. They very much want to belong; they fear being marginalized.  In sum, they want to be seen, and to see themselves, as OK people. Political correctness in universities—at least as it is pitched to them, as the way to be OK—is very attractive to them.1  

If you are going to attempt to win over the hearts and minds of white university students, you had best take their basic posture, what they are really like, into account.  Those on the left who have gotten themselves center stage in universities have done that extremely well.  White advocates and activists could learn much from how they went about it.

Now to my comments on quotes (in italics) from the section of Professor Dalton’s article, How to Organize:

You have more power than you think.  In a university, you are the paying customer. 

It’s important to distinguish between collective and individual power.  True, collectively students have power as paying customers, to use that term.  But students don’t live their lives collectively; rather, they live their lives one at a time, as separate individuals.  They live inside and direct the being that looks back at them in the mirror.

From the perspective of an individual student—let’s call her Mary Smith—she’s not a paying customer.  Mary’s application was accepted by the university and she feels really good about that, and her parents are proud of her for getting admitted; they drove her to campus just before classes started and helped her move things into her dorm room, and they met her roommate, who seemed very nice.  Being in the university setting is a big adventure for Mary, and it is a test to see if she can make a go of it on her own for the first time.

Yes, Mary could quit school and take her (or her parents’) tuition money with her.  To the university, the loss of a single tuition wouldn’t matter; it would simply admit somebody on the waiting list, no problem.  But to Mary, dropping out of school and perhaps transferring to another university would be a disruptive and, very possibly, upsetting, experience.   It’s no small matter for her to move out of her dorm room or apartment, say goodbye to her friends, break off her connections with her favorite professors and courses, and to end her school activities.  And what will this mean to her parents?  They’ve been telling all the relatives how well Mary is doing in the university, and now she’s checking out.  Will Mary see herself as letting her parents down?  Will she look upon herself as a failure?  You see where I’m going with this: it’s a more complicated matter than students being paying customers who can take their money elsewhere, and if we are going to do well by students, and by universities as a whole, we need to take that complexity into account. Read more